(UD) (PS) Angstenberger v. Tory ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANFRED F. ANGSTENBERGER and Case No.: 2:19-cv-01726-MCE-EFB-PS SHEILA COX ANGSTENBERGER, 12 Trustees of the MANFRED and SHEILA COX ANGSTENBERGER 13 TRUST, ORDER 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 ANITA TORY and Does 1 through 5, 17 Defendants. 18 19 On August 30, 2019, Defendant ANITA F. TORY, proceeding in pro se, filed a 20 Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer action from the Sacramento County Superior 21 Court.1 ECF No. 1. This Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and 22 may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 23 “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the 24 removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche 25 Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). “Federal 26 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 27 1 Despite Defendant’s pro se status, the undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to 28 a Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 302(c)(21). 1 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below, 2 Defendant has failed to meet that burden. 3 The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal 4 question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and/or (b). See ECF No. 1. 5 However, a review of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff does not allege any federal 6 claims; instead, it alleges only unlawful detainer under state law. ECF No. 1 at 6-9. 7 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well- 8 pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 9 federal question is presented on the fact of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 10 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the 11 complaint “establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] 12 the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of 13 federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage 14 Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. 15 v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 16 Here, Plaintiffs’ claim is for unlawful detainer under state law. At most, Defendant 17 argues that she has a defense under federal law. “A case may not be removed to 18 federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in 19 the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only 20 question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t. of Health & 21 Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and 22 quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 23 1441 as alleged by Defendant. 24 Accordingly: 25 1. The action is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court. 26 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of this Order on the 27 Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court, and to reference the state 28 case number (No. 19UD03756) in the proof of service. 1 3. Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as 2 moot. 3 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates. 4 5. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the 5 following unlawful detainer action: No. 19UD03756. 6 IT |S SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: September 10, 2019 10 MORRISON C. ENGLAND, J UNITED STATES DISTRI 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28